On September 04 2012 04:42 Chocolate wrote Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
I think you're confusing a lot of different issues. Abortion is something that politicians can't control, the Supreme Court ruled that it's legal many years ago. Amending the constitution is practically impossible these days so I'd take anything that politicians say about that with a grain of salt. But on the issue of marriage being between a man and a woman, that was part of Obama's platform in 2008! Although he's "changed his mind" since then. As for issues like campaign finance, requiring ID to vote, and prayer in schools, it sounds to me like your opinion is that these are pretty right wing positions, but they're really pretty standard for a lot of voters. You may disagree with them but that doesn't make them extreme positions.
On September 04 2012 04:47 Sadist wrote: There is a right wing drift of the party, how can you deny that lol. Congress as a whole was much more liberal in the 60's-70's and things that passed back then would NEVER pass nowadays.
Its a joke -_-
Do you think something like the Civil Rights act would pass nowadays?
Of course it would pass. What kind of a bizarre fantasy world are you living in? /sigh
On September 04 2012 04:42 Chocolate wrote Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
I think you're confusing a lot of different issues. Abortion is something that politicians can't control, the Supreme Court ruled that it's legal many years ago. Amending the constitution is practically impossible these days so I'd take anything that politicians say about that with a grain of salt. But on the issue of marriage being between a man and a woman, that was part of Obama's platform in 2008! Although he's "changed his mind" since then. As for issues like campaign finance, requiring ID to vote, and prayer in schools, it sounds to me like your opinion is that these are pretty right wing positions, but they're really pretty standard for a lot of voters. You may disagree with them but that doesn't make them extreme positions.
On September 04 2012 04:47 Sadist wrote: There is a right wing drift of the party, how can you deny that lol. Congress as a whole was much more liberal in the 60's-70's and things that passed back then would NEVER pass nowadays.
Its a joke -_-
Do you think something like the Civil Rights act would pass nowadays?
Of course it would pass. What kind of a bizarre fantasy world are you living in? /sigh
Something as contentious and liberal as the civil rights act would never pass nowadays since the republicans would vehemently oppose it on party grounds. The civil rights act was extremely liberal for its day.
On September 04 2012 04:42 Chocolate wrote Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
I think you're confusing a lot of different issues. Abortion is something that politicians can't control, the Supreme Court ruled that it's legal many years ago. Amending the constitution is practically impossible these days so I'd take anything that politicians say about that with a grain of salt. But on the issue of marriage being between a man and a woman, that was part of Obama's platform in 2008! Although he's "changed his mind" since then. As for issues like campaign finance, requiring ID to vote, and prayer in schools, it sounds to me like your opinion is that these are pretty right wing positions, but they're really pretty standard for a lot of voters. You may disagree with them but that doesn't make them extreme positions.
On September 04 2012 04:47 Sadist wrote: There is a right wing drift of the party, how can you deny that lol. Congress as a whole was much more liberal in the 60's-70's and things that passed back then would NEVER pass nowadays.
Its a joke -_-
Do you think something like the Civil Rights act would pass nowadays?
Of course it would pass. What kind of a bizarre fantasy world are you living in? /sigh
I actually had no idea that Obama was against gay marriage when he first ran, but that doesn't really change the issues at hand. I also realize that abortion is a nono after Roe v. Wade, but conservatives can and will still pass those silly things where you have to look at your fetus before you terminate it.
You say amending the constitution is hard, but you can't just let a party get away with saying that, especially for something so trivial. At best, it's a dishonest ploy to get the ultra-christian vote, but it still has the potential to manifest itself in an amendment dumber than prohibition. For campaign finance, ID laws, and in school prayer- how is that not ultra-right? Even if a lot of conservatives support them, that doesn't make them radical. The Soviet Union was ultra-left, that didn't mean a socialist was right. The last two are unconstitutional anyway, because one infringes upon separation of church and state and the other is a poll-tax. I guess we have different definitions of ultra-right, but these certainly qualify for me.
And do you really think the Civil Rights act would pass now? The voter ID laws' sole purpose was to disenfranchise the poor, who usually vote liberal. Anti-gay marriage exists only because some people think it will undermine the integrity of the modern family or because it goes against their religious beliefs (lolwut). Don't you think the Republicans would not want the blacks to enjoy full rights because it could undermine the white way of life, or because they just didn't like blacks? Denying these rights to African- Americans was unconstitutional, but to be honest, the Republicans only pay attention to the Constitution when it supports their views.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
No, it's anything but a myth. Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein expose this rightward drift very clearly in their book It's even worse than it looks. Even looking at the party platform, you'll notice a rightward shift.
GOP platform through the years shows party’s shift from moderate to conservative
The Republican Party, viewed through its quadrennial platform documents, is consistently business-oriented and committed to a strong defense, but has morphed over the past half-century from a socially moderate, environmentally progressive and fiscally cautious perspective to a conservative party that is suspicious of government, allied against abortion and driven by faith.
Influenced by the rise of tea party activists, this year’s platform, scheduled to be released and adopted Tuesday at the party’s convention in Tampa, has shifted to the right, particularly on fiscal issues. It calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve and a commission to study returning to the gold standard. There are odes of fidelity to the Constitution, but also a call to amend the Constitution to require a 2/3 majority in Congress to raise taxes.
Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
On September 03 2012 08:36 farvacola wrote: [quote] It is not because he is black, it is because he is partnered with the least effective and least liked congress in history.
And the reason Congress is even more obstructionist than it was under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton is that the White House has a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Atheist Fascist instead of a Real American in the eyes of a lot of people.
It certainly doesn't help, that much is for sure. If we were to play a game of hypotheticals, however, I'm pretty sure a caucasian Democratic president in Obama's spot would face similar obstruction given the contemporary political climate. Difficult to say in any case.
It's true, but we do have an example with Clinton and the much more energized Contract With America Congress. The crucial difference, I think, is that Clinton was able to push back harder and fight for actual compromise, whereas Obama has taken a conciliatory tone off the bat only to be rebuked and chastised as the most left-wing president ever. I mean look at how he dropped support (and even fought against supporters in his own party) for the public option in his healthcare reform, in return for...wait for it...0 votes in the Senate and 0 votes in the House from Republicans. And he didn't even start off with his ideal bill: he started off with a compromise version that had a lot in common with Republican proposals only to be rebuffed entirely by Republicans and branded as an angry super-Marxist. I really do think that a lot of Obama's milquetoast centrism comes from the fact that if he really stood up for anything, he believes (and probably rightly so) that there would be even MORE backlash than there is from him being a center-right politician already deemed an ultra-leftist.
The differences are 1) Clinton was a true centrist whereas Obama is not, and 2) Clinton was a superior politician who knew how to co-opt republican ideas and positions, thereby neutralizing his opposition.
I'll concede that Clinton was a better politician, but by positions Obama is even more of a centrist and more willing to compromise and give up ground than Clinton was, and yet he's vilified even more.
Clinton bucked his party and signed Welfare Reform pushed by Republicans. Name me a time that Obama went against his party and sided with the GOP....
Thats not even close. Clinton basically said, "the GOP is right on this and I am going to work with them". Obama basically caved to pressure and the political fallout of allowing the tax cuts to expire so allowed a temporary stalemate to continue.
If that is the most "bipartisan" thing he has done, then the point continues to stand.
It takes 2 people to work together. Clinton was actually able to work with republicans on wellfare reform because they didnt keep moving the goalpost everytime they were close to a deal.
You probably weren't around during those years or weren't paying attention. That was the congress that:
1. Shut down government in a fight with Clinton AND 2. Impeached him.
It was at least as divisive as today if not moreso. I remember it clearly. And even so, they were able to get stuff done. Largely because Clinton was more of a centrist. Obama is not and has not tried to work with congressional GOP.
On September 04 2012 04:42 Chocolate wrote Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
I think you're confusing a lot of different issues. Abortion is something that politicians can't control, the Supreme Court ruled that it's legal many years ago. Amending the constitution is practically impossible these days so I'd take anything that politicians say about that with a grain of salt. But on the issue of marriage being between a man and a woman, that was part of Obama's platform in 2008! Although he's "changed his mind" since then. As for issues like campaign finance, requiring ID to vote, and prayer in schools, it sounds to me like your opinion is that these are pretty right wing positions, but they're really pretty standard for a lot of voters. You may disagree with them but that doesn't make them extreme positions.
On September 04 2012 04:47 Sadist wrote: There is a right wing drift of the party, how can you deny that lol. Congress as a whole was much more liberal in the 60's-70's and things that passed back then would NEVER pass nowadays.
Its a joke -_-
Do you think something like the Civil Rights act would pass nowadays?
And do you really think the Civil Rights act would pass now? The voter ID laws' sole purpose was to disenfranchise the poor, who usually vote liberal. Anti-gay marriage exists only because some people think it will undermine the integrity of the modern family or because it goes against their religious beliefs (lolwut). Don't you think the Republicans would not want the blacks to enjoy full rights because it could undermine the white way of life, or because they just didn't like blacks? Denying these rights to African- Americans was unconstitutional, but to be honest, the Republicans only pay attention to the Constitution when it supports their views.
This sort of thinking is more crazy than the birther movement. Last I checked it was Democrat politicians praising then-senator Obama for being "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" (Joe Biden) or Harry Reid praising Obama for being a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Let's also just ignore Robert Byrd also.
To blankly accuse Republicans of being racists is so ridiculous and is just feeding into very insulting stereotypes; Stereotypes that liberals are supposed to be against. Just because racists rednecks tend to vote republican doesn't mean republicans tend to be racist rednecks, you're smart enough to see that.
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
On September 04 2012 04:42 Chocolate wrote Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
I think you're confusing a lot of different issues. Abortion is something that politicians can't control, the Supreme Court ruled that it's legal many years ago. Amending the constitution is practically impossible these days so I'd take anything that politicians say about that with a grain of salt. But on the issue of marriage being between a man and a woman, that was part of Obama's platform in 2008! Although he's "changed his mind" since then. As for issues like campaign finance, requiring ID to vote, and prayer in schools, it sounds to me like your opinion is that these are pretty right wing positions, but they're really pretty standard for a lot of voters. You may disagree with them but that doesn't make them extreme positions.
On September 04 2012 04:47 Sadist wrote: There is a right wing drift of the party, how can you deny that lol. Congress as a whole was much more liberal in the 60's-70's and things that passed back then would NEVER pass nowadays.
Its a joke -_-
Do you think something like the Civil Rights act would pass nowadays?
And do you really think the Civil Rights act would pass now? The voter ID laws' sole purpose was to disenfranchise the poor, who usually vote liberal. Anti-gay marriage exists only because some people think it will undermine the integrity of the modern family or because it goes against their religious beliefs (lolwut). Don't you think the Republicans would not want the blacks to enjoy full rights because it could undermine the white way of life, or because they just didn't like blacks? Denying these rights to African- Americans was unconstitutional, but to be honest, the Republicans only pay attention to the Constitution when it supports their views.
GTFO
No need to insult. Stay civil
This sort of thinking is more crazy than the birther movement. Last I checked it was Democrat politicians praising then-senator Obama for being "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" (Joe Biden) or Harry Reid praising Obama for being a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Let's also just ignore Robert Byrd also.
To blankly accuse Republicans of being racists is so ridiculous and is just feeding into very insulting stereotypes; Stereotypes that liberals are supposed to be against. Just because racists rednecks tend to vote republican doesn't mean republicans tend to be racist rednecks, you're smart enough to see that.
It's called the Southern Strategy and it remains an integral part of Federal Republican politics.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
I was just going to bring this up. Regardless of which party is to blame, there are some basic recognitions of civil rights that our supposedly "enlightened" society continues to ignore.
I guess when you believe bullshit like this there's no way for a Republican to say anything without being a racist!
Blanketly accusing nearly 50% of the country of being a bunch of racists and calling every single word out of one party's mouth a "dog-whistle" or "code" only diminishes real racism. It's a horrible disservice to the people who sacrificed so much in the Civil Rights Movement and people need to stop being so knee-jerk when a person disagrees with a minority.
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
EDIT: Could it also be illegal for someone to choose who he talks to and spends time with? I think there should be strict anti-discriminatory laws for public employees but private people should be able to hire and fire for any reason since it is their money.
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
The govt can regulate why someone is hired and fired. Not who. As it should be.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
Most Americans support some form of voter ID law too. So it's hardly an 'extreme' position.
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
Most Americans support some form of voter ID law too. So it's hardly an 'extreme' position.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
Again, I guess what I call extreme is not what everyone calls extreme. To me, extremism isn't holding an unpopular view, it's holding an unreasonable one (not that I think about it, that's a bad definition, shouldn't have used extreme to begin with). What I'm saying is that denying gay-marriage makes no sense: why shouldn't two people of the same gender receive the same treatment as two people of opposite genders?
This sort of thinking is more crazy than the birther movement. Last I checked it was Democrat politicians praising then-senator Obama for being "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" (Joe Biden) or Harry Reid praising Obama for being a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Let's also just ignore Robert Byrd also.
To blankly accuse Republicans of being racists is so ridiculous and is just feeding into very insulting stereotypes; Stereotypes that liberals are supposed to be against. Just because racists rednecks tend to vote republican doesn't mean republicans tend to be racist rednecks, you're smart enough to see that.
Well, it's a very unproductive argument because it's simply not the case today. I was just taking their stance on current issues and comparing them to the Civil Rights movement, because I think they are quite comparable. Social Liberalism is basically an unstoppable force in our society, though. Starting with allowing the poor-white vote, going through the Women's Rights movement, culminating in the Civil Rights movement, with facets in lgbt rights, other foreigners' rights, and abortion, very few of its changes have been redacted, if any. It's my opinion that social reform is unstoppable, but it might take some time for us to see its fruits.
On September 04 2012 05:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: The Republican party could make it a platform to ban all abortions, and they would be no more extreme than Abraham Lincoln.
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
Plenty of things, as can be seen in European countries where the employer has to have a reasonable cause to fire an employee. And it's "why", as natrus rightly pointed out.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
EPT
My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
